February 28, 2023. In March 2020 when so little was known about covid-19, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko developed the Zelenko Protocol. For high-risk patients, the protocol recommended early aggressive treatment with a combination of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, azithromycin, and vitamin C. An important recommendation was that treatment begin within five days of the onset of covid-19 symptoms. In fact, Dr. Zelenko recommended that high-risk patients not wait for covid-19 test results to come back before starting on the medications.
In an interview, Rudy Giuliani asked Dr. Zelenko about the benefits of his protocol. He replied, "You don't die."
The key to Zelenko's success was early treatment. The theory of operation is that hydroxychloroquine facilitates the passage of zinc through the cell walls and into the cells where it inhibits viral replication. Thus, the growth of covid-19 in your body is slowed or possibly stopped. Vitamin C aids the immune system, and azithromycin kills off any secondary infections. Vitamin D was added to the recommendations when it was noted that vitamin D deficiency was common in covid-19 fatalities.
What great news, I thought. There's something that can keep us alive if we get covid. President Trump thought it was great news too. He said hydroxychloroquine might be a "game changer." Naturally, the press did not agree.
During a White House press briefing, NBC News correspondent Peter Alexander asked Trump if by touting HCQ he offered false hope to people terrified of covid. I was aghast, myself. I wondered the opposite. By dismissing HCQ's potential, wasn't Alexander depriving people of hope and discouraging them from seeking lifesaving treatment? And all for the career boost that comes from publicly and personally attacking Trump.
That's when I was sure they were lying. It was March 20, 2020.
At the time I thought it was the usual anti-Trump press bias at work. Legacy media types would distort something President Trump said, then ridicule or vilify him for saying it. Piling on Trump was its own industry within the media, and any opportunity would do.
But the attacks on HCQ originated within the administration. When Trump hoped HCQ would be a game changer, Anthony Fauci quickly pointed out that evidence was anecdotal. There were no double-blind studies. Eventually, the FDA authorized HCQ treatment, but not as recommended by Dr. Zelenko. In a March 28, 2020 letter of authorization the FDA's Cheif Scientist, Denise M. Hinton wrote:
I am authorizing use of the following hydroxychloroquine sulfate product that is distributed from the SNS to public health authorities for response to the COVID-19 pandemic:
- FDA-approved hydroxychloroquine sulfate that is approved by FDA for other uses and accompanied by its FDA-approved labeling and authorized Fact Sheets.
- The hydroxychloroquine sulfate must be administered by a healthcare provider pursuant to a valid valid prescription of a licensed practitioner.
- The hydroxychloroquine sulfate may only be used to treat adult and adolescent patients who weigh 50 kg or more hospitalized with COVID-19 for whom a clinical trial is not available, or participation is not feasible. (My emphasis)
While Dr. Zelenko's objective was to keep patients out of the hospital, the FDA's HCQ authorization delayed treatment until patients were sick enough to be in the hospital and beyond the point where HCQ would help. See, it doesn't work said the FDA. On June 15, 2020, the FDA revoked the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. (My emphasis)
Meanwhile, the press was in a feeding frenzy.
Trump peddles unsubstantiated hope in dark times
Trump Misleads on Hydroxychloroquine, Again
Trump spreads video of doctor who falsely claims hydroxychloroquine cures COVID-19
Timeline: Tracking Trump alongside scientific developments on hydroxychloroquine
Since HCQ was authorized by the FDA only for patients hospitalized with covid-19, a subsequent FDA study was useless. However, a study showing HCQ's effectiveness when used as recommended was published on October 26, 2020.
The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the outpatient setting after early treatment with zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (triple therapy) dependent on risk stratification. This was a retrospective case series study in the general practice setting. A total of 141 COVID-19 patients with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the year 2020 were included...
Independent public reference data from 377 confirmed COVID-19 patients in the same community were used as untreated controls...
Of 141 treated patients, 4 (2.8%) were hospitalised, which was significantly fewer (P < 0.001) compared with 58 (15.4%) of 377 untreated patients [odds ratio (OR) = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-0.5]. One patient (0.7%) in the treatment group died versus 13 patients (3.4%) in the untreated group (OR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.03-1.5; P = 0.12). No cardiac side effects were observed. Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset using triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low-dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly fewer hospitalisations.
Another study found Early combination therapy with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin reduces mortality in 10,429 COVID-19 outpatients. Again, early treatment in an outpatient setting.
I didn't get why administration officials would be lying about HCQ. Why would an Emergency Use Authorization for HCQ restrict its use until patients could no longer benefit from it?
Vaccines were in the works. Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson were developing coronavirus vaccines which, themselves, would require Emergency Use Authorizations from the FDA. The law governing EUAs is 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies. It specifies six criteria for the issuance of an EUA. Number three is the fly in drug company ointments.
The Secretary may issue an authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if, after consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1)), the Secretary concludes—
[...]
(3)that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;(My emphasis)
If hydroxychloroquine, or any other therapeutic such as ivermectin, was proven effective against covid, an EUA could not legally be issued. Hundreds of billions of dollars hanging in the balance were threatened by an effective medicine such as hydroxychloroquine.
It was bad enough that the administration actively discouraged and withheld lifesaving treatments. But the lying didn't stop there. Vaccines were touted to provide immunity to covid and to prevent its spread. So, what did the CDC do when they discovered that the vaccine didn't provide immunity after all? They changed the definition of vaccine. We go to the Wayback Machine for the original definition:
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose. (My Emphasis)
Here is the CDC's new and current definition of a vaccine:
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Notice that there is no mention of immunity in the new definition, nor does it promise protection against a specific disease. It actually doesn't promise protection against any disease, only that it "is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases [in general?]." Well, that tends to lower one's expectations.
Also, it's widely accepted that children are the least susceptible of anyone to be affected by the coronavirus. Yet vaccines were pushed on children from age five up. The rationale has been that even when children are asymptomatic, they can still spread the virus to others. Turns out vaccinated people can spread covid too. So what's the point?
Money. Every vaccination puts taxpayer money into drug company coffers. Drug companies lobby. They donate. They pay out royalties.
We live in unprecedented times. Never have I seen such blatant dishonesty and meddling by unelected government officials. (It's expected from the elected ones.) It's right in your face. It's as if they're saying, "Yeah, so what do you think you're going to do about it?"
Well. What are we going to do about it?